Register a new regulated entity.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "create_entity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | No | ||
| name | No | Entity name | |
| entity_type | No | Type | |
| jurisdiction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'register' without explaining permission requirements, idempotency, duplicate handling, or return values. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot infer what the tool returns, what input is mandatory, or how it differs from related tools, leaving major gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (lei and jurisdiction lack descriptions), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, and required fields remain ambiguous since all parameters are optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Register a new regulated entity' clearly states the verb (register) and resource (new regulated entity), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'onboard_entity' or 'register_provider', so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `onboard_entity` or `register_provider`. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.